RE: [tm-pubsubj] Vote on Requirements document

["Tsao, Scott" <scott.tsao@boeing.com>]

Bernard - Thanks for the clarification.  Obviously I was not involved in
earlier discussions before the call for vote.  Given the circumstances we
are facing right now, I would give a "yes" vote.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:44 AM
To: Tsao, Scott; tm-pubsubj
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Vote on Requirements document


Scott

1. From a formal viewpoint:
The Requirements have been posted for review for a while (two months), and
we should even
have voted on them during January 29 co-call. We had time enough I think to
adjust the
vocabulary. The review period is now over, and I called for a formal vote.
Since some
people have already cast their vote, no change on the text can be made now.

2. Remind you that requirements don't presume of the final terminology that
will be
adopted, and that a part of this terminology should be submitted to ISO
anyway. For
example it was clear in the latest debate on terminology in January that
"published
subject documentation set" was kept as a provisional term, default of
something shorter
and explicit enough.

3. Concerning #5, you wrote

> "#5 The TC SHALL make recommendations regarding the interpretation of the
> URIs used as published subject identifiers."  Would this include for
example
> the use of URN vs. URL as published subject identifiers?

If I remember well the debate in Orlando, that point was set with in mind
the fact that
there should not be any interpretation at all. That means we should
recommend that the URI
SHALL NOT be used for humans to find out what the subject *is* (through any
kind of
reading/interpretation of the URI structure and syntax) without resolving
the URI and find
out the published subject indicator (that is the resource likely to be
interpreted by
humans).

Use of URN is another but linked issue. Given the way we have defined PSI
with one face
for human interpretation and one face for computer identification, it seems
IMO to rule
out anything but URLs. But we have to agree upon that.

Bernard

----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Tsao, Scott" <scott.tsao@boeing.com>
À : "'Bernard Vatant'" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>; "tm-pubsubj"
<tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org>
Envoyé : mardi 19 février 2002 21:32
Objet : RE: [tm-pubsubj] Vote on Requirements document


> One recommendation:
> Change all occurrences of "published subject documentation set" to
"publish
> subject documentation."
>
> One question:
> "#5 The TC SHALL make recommendations regarding the interpretation of the
> URIs used as published subject identifiers."  Would this include for
example
> the use of URN vs. URL as published subject identifiers?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Tsao
> IS Architecture & eBusiness
> The Boeing Company
> P.O. Box 3707, MC 6H-AF
> Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> 425-237-3337 (Voice) 425-237-3428 (Fax)
> Email: scott.tsao@boeing.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 1:39 AM
> To: tm-pubsubj
> Subject: [tm-pubsubj] Vote on Requirements document
>
>
> Folks
>
> The "Requirements for Documentation of Published Subjects" ...
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/requirements/part1.htm
>
> ... has not yet been formally approved by the TC.
>
> This is the official call for vote on document approval.
>
> Please return your vote before Friday February 22.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bernard
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>